PLS2601/202/1/2023

Tutorial Letter 202/1/2023

Critical Reasoning

PLS2601

Semester 2

Department of Philosophy, Practical and

Systematic Theology

Discipline of Philosophy

This tutorial letter contains important feedback information on your second

assignment and the Final Examination.

BARCODE
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
2 ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR PLS2601 .......................................................................................... 3
3 FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 02 (UNIQUE NUMBER: 750129)............................................... 3
4 THE FINAL EXAMINATION ....................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Format of the Examination …………………………………………………………………………….10
4.2 Duration of the Exam …………………………………………………………………………………...10
4.3 Structure of the Exam Paper ………………………………………………………………………….10
4.4 The scope of the Exam …………………………………………………………………………………10
5. OTHERS …………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
5.1 Exam Papers of previous years ………………………………………………………………………11
6 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 12

2
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

1. INTRODUCTION

Dear student of PLS2601 Critical Reasoning,

This follow up tutorial letter contains the answers to Assignment 02. The questions for this assignment
come from Study Guide (All lessons and multilingual glossary).

2. ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR PLS2601

Please be reminded again that your second assignment carries significant percentage of your final module
mark (20% of final mark). See the table below.

Formative assessment Summative assessment FINAL MODULE

(40% of final mark) (60% of final mark) MARK
+ = (100%
Assignment + Assignment Examination
01 02
(20% of final (20% of final
mark) mark)

As each assessment component comprises a significant percentage of your final module mark, you are
encouraged to submit each assignment, on time, and completed to the very best of your ability.

3. FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 02 (UNIQUE NUMBER: 750129)

Instructions for Question 1:

Write short answers for each question. The number alongside each question is the total mark
for the question.

QUESTION 1: SHORT QUESTIONS:

1.1 Make a brief comparison between ‘formal’ and ‘informal logic’ (4)
Formal logic Informal logic
Examines formal structures of arguments Studies arguments which occur in natural /
using logical language or symbols. everyday language discourse instead of arguments
in formal languages.
It uses precise rules for testing validity or It does not use any predetermined and fixed rules
acceptability of arguments. to judge the acceptability of arguments.

3
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

1.2 Write short notes (3-4 lines) to a friend on the importance of Critical Reasoning?
(2)
Students are free to say anything here which is well constructed and does make sense.

1.3 Describe briefly what the standard form of an argument is? (4)
The standard form of an argument is the reorganisation of an argument wherein the premises
(supporting statements) are written or stated first, followed by the main assertion of an argument
(supported statement/s)

1.4 Put the following arguments in a standard form.

1.4.1 All acts that promote the general welfare are commanded by God. For all acts commanded
by God are obligatory acts. And all acts that promote the general welfare are obligatory acts
(3)
Step 1 Identify the conclusion (main statement) of the argument
Note first that this is a categorical syllogism. It usually comprises of three
statements, one of which is the conclusion and the other two, the premises.
But we don’t have any conclusion indicator in this argument. So, we can suspend this
step and go to the next one, namely identification of premises. When we know which
statements are premises then obviously the remaining statement should be the
conclusion.

Step 2 Identify the premises.

The two statements following ‘for’ and ‘And’ are premises. ‘And’ is precisely a premise
indicator especially as the statement following it comes immediately after the first premise. Put
differently, ‘And’ indicates that the sentence following it provides more reasons for upholding the
conclusion. Accordingly, the two premises are:

(For) all acts commanded by God are obligatory acts.

(And) all acts that promote the general welfare are obligatory acts.

Now that we know which statements are our premises, there is one remaining
statement which is unallocated. This is our conclusion, namely:
All acts that promote the general welfare are commanded by God

Step 3 Rewrite the argument in standard form.

Premise 1: (For) All acts commanded by God are obligatory acts

Premise 2: (And) All acts that promote the general welfare are obligatory acts
Conclusion: All acts that promote the general welfare are acts commanded by God.

1.4.2 If Libya raises the price of oil, then Egypt’s food shortage will worsen. It follows that Libya did
not raise the price of oil. However, Egypt’s food shortage did not worsen. (3)
Step 1 Identify the conclusion (main statement) of the argument
Note first that this is a hypothetical syllogism. It usually comprises of three
statements also, one of which is the conclusion and the other two, the premises.

4
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

Looking closely at the argument, we can see the conclusion indicator, namely, ‘It follows
that…’ The statement/sentence following this clause is the conclusion of the argument.
So, the conclusion of the argument is:

Libya did not raise the price of oil.

Step 2 Identify the premises.

Looking at the remaining two statements, we can see that there are premise
indicators, namely, ‘if…’ and ‘however.’ The latter is a premise indicator despite that it
does not appear in your study guide. It is used in the same way as the following premise
indicators: whereas, inasmuch as, although, etc. So, our two premises are:

If Libya raises the price of oil, then Egypt’s food shortage will worsen.
(However,) Egypt’s food shortage did not worsen.

Now that we know which statements are our premises, and which one is our
conclusion, we are ready to move on to the next step.

Step 3 Rewrite the argument in standard form.

Premise 1: If Libya raises the price of oil, then Egypt’s food shortage will worsen
Premise 2: (However) Egypt’s food shortage did not worsen
Conclusion: (It follows that) Libya did not raise the price of oil.

1.5 What types of Definitions are in each of the following passages?

1.5.1 Charlotte’s sprinkle scone is a baked vanilla flavoured scone, dusted with sugar, covered in
chocolate sprinkles both baked in and rolled onto the top of the scone. (2)

Stipulative definition

1.5.2 A bachelor is an unmarried man. A spinster, on the other hand is a female version of a bachelor.

(2)
Lexical definition

1.6 What fallacy can be identified in each of the following passages:

1.6.1 But can you doubt that air has weight when you have the clear testimony of Aristotle affirming
that all elements have weight including air, and excepting only fire?
(2)

False appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

1.6.2 It is quite clear what the proponents of legalized euthanasia are seeking. Put simply, they are
seeking the power to kill anyone who has a serious illness. And that is why I stand opposed to
legalized euthanasia.
(2)
Straw man fallacy

5
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

1.6.3 An accused person is brought to court and the first question that the judge asks him is the
following: Have you stopped beating your wife? (2)

Complex question fallacy

QUESTION 2: ARGUMENT EVALUATION:

Instructions for Question 2:

1. Evaluate the following arguments.
2. In your evaluation, state whether the argument is inductive or deductive, value or empirical,
contains a fallacy or not (stipulate which fallacy if it contains one) and whether it is valid/invalid
or sound/unsound.
3. Present your responses to all the arguments in the table provided below:

Argument 2.1
All artificial satellites are important scientific achievements; therefore, some important scientific
achievements are not American inventions, inasmuch as artificial satellites are not American inventions.
Solution:
First put the argument in standard form as we did in question 1.4 above. This means, identify the
conclusion and the two premises of the argument. Clearly, there is a conclusion indicator and one
premise indicator. Then the remaining statement is obviously a second premise. So, here is an argument
in a standard form:
Premise 1: (Inasmuch as) artificial satellites are not American inventions.
Premise 2: All artificial satellites are important scientific achievements.
Conclusion: (therefore) Some important scientific achievements are not American
inventions.
Further analysis of argument:
- This is a deductive argument because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
- It is an empirical argument because both of its premises are verifiable statements. You can determine if
they are true or false.
- This is also a valid argument as the conclusion is derived appropriately from the premises.
- Thus, there is no fallacy in this argument.
- The argument is also sound because not only is it valid, but it is also comprising of true premises

Argument 2.2
If it rains our streets will get wet. Our streets are certainly wet. Thus, it is raining.

6
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

Solution:
First put the argument in standard form. This argument comprises of three statements, one of which is
the conclusion and the other two premises.
In this argument there is a conclusion indicator, namely, ‘thus’. Further, there is one premise indicator,
namely, ‘if.’ So, the remaining statement is the second premise of the argument. So, here is an argument
in a standard form:
Premise 1: (If) it is rains our streets will get wet
Premise 2: Our streets are certainly wet
Conclusion: (Thus), it is raining.
Further analysis of argument:
- This is a deductive argument because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
- It is an empirical argument because both of its premises are verifiable statements. You can determine if
they are true or false.
- Note, that this is an invalid argument because it violates the modus ponens rule (Remember the rule: If
P then Q
P Modus ponens argument
Therefore Q
But the argument (in 2.2) is of the form:
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P
So, if you go back to your study guide, this argument has a fallacy called affirming the consequent.
- Thus, this is a fallacious argument. It violates the modus ponens rule by affirming the consequent
instead of the antecedent.
- Since, this is an invalid argument, the argument is also unsound.

Argument 2.3
Mpho has a Toyota vehicle which lasted her 250 000 kms. Jane also has a Toyota vehicle that broke
down only after travelling about 200 000kms. Tumelo’s Toyota vehicle gave up on him after 280 000
kms. Therefore, probably all Toyota vehicles last for about 300 000kms.

Solution:
First put the argument in standard form as we did above. This means identifying the conclusion and the
premises of the argument. Clearly, there is a conclusion indicator in this argument (Therefore). Then the
remaining statements are obviously premises. This means that the conclusion of this argument is:
(Therefore), probably all Toyota vehicles last for about 300 000kms.
The remaining statements are therefore premises. So, here is an argument in a standard form:
Premise 1: Mpho has a Toyota vehicle which lasted her 250 000 kms.

7
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

Premise 2: Jane also has a Toyota vehicle that broke down only after travelling about
200 000kms.
Premise 3: Tumelo’s Toyota vehicle gave up on him after 280 000 kms.
Conclusion: (Therefore), probably all Toyota vehicles last for about 300 000kms.
Further analysis of argument:
- The reasoning in this argument tells us that the conclusion was not reached in a deductive manner. In
other words, the conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the force or strength of the premises not on
the basis of a particular arrangement of the premises as is the case with deductive arguments. So, this is
an inductive argument.
- this is also an empirical argument because all of its premises are verifiable statements. You can
determine if they are true or false.
- Although, we can loosely say that this is a valid argument, strictly speaking, this is a strong or forceful
argument. The premises support the conclusion in a strong way.
- Thus, there is no fallacy in this argument.

Summary table for answers:

Table in which to provide your answers (If you want, you can create your own table)
Inductive or Value or Fallacy? If ‘Yes,’ Valid / invalid or
Deductive empirical which? sound / unsound
Argument 2.1 Deductive Empirical No fallacy Valid & sound

Argument 2.2 Deductive Empirical Yes, affirming the Invalid

consequent
Argument 2.3 Inductive Empirical No fallacy Valid or strong
argument

(1x13=13)

QUESTION 3: ARGUMENT MAPS/DIAGRAMS:

Instructions for Question 3:
Create argument maps/argument diagrams of the following arguments.
The format of the argument maps/diagrams should be along the lines of the following example:
All humans beings are mortal (1). Thabo is a human being (2). Therefore, Thabo is mortal (3).
1 2

3
Be sure that you number the statements as they are labelled in the questions.

8
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

3.1 [I emphatically deny that each culture should be judged only by its own moral standards] = 1, for [if
each culture should be judged only by its moral code, then no culture’s moral standards should be
criticised] = 2. But [the ethical standards of some cultures ought to be criticised] = 3, because [some
cultures permit slavery, cannibalism, and/or the oppression of women] = 4. Hence [it is not the case
that each culture should be judged only by its own ethical standards] = 1.
(5 marks)

Solution
First rewrite the argument in a standard form.
Please follow the procedure we outlined in 1.4 and 2.1, 2.2 & 2.3 above. If you follow
this procedure you will notice that statement 1 (which repeat itself in this argument) is
the overall conclusion of the entire argument.
Further, statements 2 and 4 are supporting statement 3 interdependently. This means
that statements 2 & 4 need each other to be able to support statement 3 conclusively.
As a result, statement 3 is sub-conclusion of this argument. But then, statements 2
& 4, together with statement 3, support statement 1, and thus make it an overall
conclusion of the entire argument.

Schematically, the argument can be represented as follows:

2 4

3.2 Since [affirmative action involves giving a less qualified person the job] = 1, [affirmative action is
unjust] = 2. After all, [the most qualified person deserves the job] = 3.
(3 marks)
Solution
First rewrite the argument in a standard form.
Please follow the procedure we outlined in 1.4 and 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 & 3.1 above. If you
follow this procedure, you will notice that statement 2 is the conclusion of the
argument. There is however, no conclusion indicator to assure you of this. But, since
we have two premise indicators namely, ‘since’ and ‘after all’, we can conclude that
the remaining statement (2) is a conclusion. The two premises are therefore
represented by statements 1 & 3.

9
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

But note that the two premises, namely, “since affirmative action involves giving a less
qualified person the job” & “after all, the most qualified person deserves the job”, support
the conclusion, independently. This is a different scenario from argument 3.1 where
statements 2 & 4 support the sub-conclusion interdependently. This means that either statement
1 or statement 3, could give rise to the conclusion independent of the other. But, when they
stand together to support the conclusion, the conclusion becomes even stronger.

Schematically, the argument can be represented as follows:

1 3

3.3 [Waging war is always wrong] = 1 because [it involves killing human beings] = 2. And [killing
humans is wrong] = 3. (3 marks)
[11]
Solution
First rewrite the argument in a standard form.
Please follow the procedure we outlined above. If you follow this procedure, you will
notice that statement 1 is the conclusion of the argument even though it has no
conclusion indicator.
Statements 2 and 3, following the fact that they have premise indicators are premises.
Obviously, using the principle of elimination, the remaining statement, which is
statement 1 becomes the conclusion.
Schematically, the argument can be represented as follows:

2 3

[50 MARKS]

10
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

4. THE FINAL EXAMINATION

4.1 Format of the Exam:

Your exam will be a “non-venue based examination” which will consist of a timed examination question
paper, which you will be able to download on the MyExam platform, within the specified duration assigned
for the examination.

4.2 Duration of the Exam:

Your exam will run for three (3) Hours. These three hours should be dedicated to the writing of your
answers. Unisa has given you an extra hour over and above the three hours for the upload of your exam
script. Strictly speaking, this hour should be dedicated to efforts to scan and submit your scripts on the
myExam platform. This may take a while as many other students will be trying to submit at the same time.
So, within 4 hours you should try to write your answers and submit your script to the Exam department.

4.3 Structure of the Exam paper:

The examination paper for the module PLS2601 (Critical Reasoning) consists of written short questions.
Be guided by the types of questions posed in your second assignments, because similar sorts of questions
will be asked in the examination. There are no multiple-choice questions on the question paper.

4.4 The scope of the Exam:

The “scope” of the examination covers the full content of the module.
We would like to encourage the greater use of myUnisa by PLS2601 students. You will find that coupled
with many additional online resources, there are opportunities online to engage with us, via the discussion
forums. Within the discussion forums, please feel free to post your problems and concerns and we will
attempt to respond to them timeously.

4.5 Where to answer exam questions?

Students need not answer the exam questions within the downloaded exam paper. You can create your
own document on which to answer. But please make sure that you will convert your document into a pdf
file before you submit it on the myExam platform.

5. OTHERS
5.1 Examination papers of previous years:
I will upload a couple of examination question papers and memoranda to assist you with your revision.
Please note that some previous exam papers that you may find in the MyUnisa may still bear an outdated

11
 PLS2601/202/1/2023

exam structure wherein multiple-choice questions were still utilised. There will not be any multiple-choice
questions in the forth-coming examination.

6. CONCLUSION

We hope that you have found this Tutorial Letter useful. Should you have any queries, questions, etc.,
please do not hesitate to contact us or your group’s e-tutor.

With kind regards, and best wishes for your studies in Critical Reasoning,

Dr. Ezekiel Mkhwanazi

Discipline of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology

Telephone: +27 12 429 6397

e-mail: mkhwaesn@unisa.ac.za

12